Long guidewire peripheral intravenous catheters in emergency departments for management of difficult intravenous access: A multicenter, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial.

Abstract

Background: A quarter of patients who present to emergency departments (EDs) have difficult intravenous access (DIVA), making it challenging for clinicians to successfully place a peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC). Some literature suggests that guidewire PIVC improves first-insertion success rate.

Aim: The aim was to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a novel long PIVC (5.8 cm) with a retractable coiled guidewire (GW-PIVC) for patients with DIVA, compared with standard care PIVCs.

Methods: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial was conducted in two Australian EDs. Eligible participants were adults assessed as meeting DIVA criteria. Participants were randomized (1:1 ratio; stratified by hospital) to either GW-PIVC (long) or standard care group (short or long PIVC). The use of ultrasound was discretionary in the standard care group and was recommended in the GW-PIVC group due to the pragmatic design that was primarily testing the GW-PIVC rather than the ultrasound use. Primary outcome was first-insertion success and secondary outcomes included all-cause device failure, patient and staff satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness. The analysis was intention to treat.

Results: A total of 446 participants were randomized and 409 received PIVCs. The use of GW-PIVC, compared with standard PIVC, had a lower first-insertion success rate (68% vs. 77%, odds ratio [OR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43-0.99, p < 0.05). There was no difference in PIVC failure (134.0 per 1000 catheter days [GW-PIVC] vs. 111.8 [standard PIVC] per 1000 catheter days, hazard ratio 1.18, 95% CI 0.72-1.95). Both participant (8/10 vs. 9/10, median difference [MD] -1.00, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.63) and clinician (8/10 vs. 10/10, MD -2.00, 95% CI -2.37 to -1.63) satisfaction was lower with GW-PIVCs compared with standard PIVCs. More nurses inserted standard PIVCs than GW-PIVCs (56.9% vs. 36.5%) and had less confidence in their ultrasound skills (28.0% vs. 46.6% self-claimed as advanced/expert users). The cost per participant of GW-PIVC insertions was 2.46 times greater than standard PIVC insertions ($AU80.24 vs. $AU32.57).

Conclusions: GW-PIVCs had significantly lower first-insertion success and non-significantly higher all-cause catheter failure. Additional training and device design familiar to clinicians are vital factors to enhance the likelihood of successful future implementation of GW-PIVCs.